Path: sn.no!uninett.no!newsfeed.nacamar.de!newsfeed.ecrc.net!newshub2.home.com!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!zdc!szdc!newsp.zippo.com!snews3 From: mirele@super.zippo.com (Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series)) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Ward, Tidepool Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 02:06:10 GMT Organization: Knights of Xenu, Kingdom of Deseret Chapter Lines: 65 Message-ID: <3449693e.15332698@snews.zippo.com> References: <877220155.28305@dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-059.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/16.451 Xref: sn.no alt.religion.scientology:385767 alt.censorship:170526 ars_cc@hotmail.com (ARSCC Controller) wrote: >Claiming "freedom of speech" as a defence for Ward's behaviour >is just plain silly. > >Despite what some madcaps on A.R.S apparently believe, >freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom for anyone to utter or >publish ANYTHING. > >This right is certainly accompanied by certain restrictions. >To name some: > > - Information threatening national security > > - Libel and slander against individuals or organisations > > - Copyright violations > >If Tidepool consider Ward's posting belong in one of those illegal >categories (guess which one), obviously, they have no obligation >to stay accessory to his acts. You sorry sack of lying $cieno slime, why is it that we have to educate you on the law? Are you trying to *deceive* people? (For the uninitiated, yes, I know he's trying to deceive.) It's well known that Grady's posts are satire...yes, they're vile too, but they're satire. They have not happened in real life. Therefore, no matter how vile and disgusting you and yours might consider them, they are protected speech under the First Amendment. May I refer you to Falwell v. Hustler. This was the case where Jerry Falwell tried to get around NYT v. Sullivan by suing Hustler after Hustler published a rather nasty parody of a Campari ad, which implied in part that Falwell's first sexual experience was incestuous. The Supreme Court ruled, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, that the First Amendment applied here. Rehnquist was none too pleased about having to defend Hustler, but as he pointed out, this was satire, it said it was a parody, and if the Court were to rule for Falwell, that would effectively put the kibosh on the longstanding tradition of editorial comment and satire. (Think of all those editorial cartoons out there.) Anyway, if Miscavige, Kobrin, McShane and all the rest of the Scientologists that have been allegedly libeled by Grady Ward were to sue Mr. Ward, they'd find that their cause of action would likely be dismissed not only because it's satire (and provably so, nobody takes this seriously), but also because Sailor Boy and his minions are demonstrably public figures when it comes to $cientology. (NYT v. Sullivan) Moreover, as one of my legal friends says, it's really hard to libel an attorney by calling her a whore. Attorneys are called much worse things. So take that back to your leader, you so-called Controller. HAND Deana Deana M. Holmes alt.religion.scientology archivist since February 1995 NEW! 4/97 *and* 4/96 Poster Child for Clueless $cientology Litigiousness mirele@super.zippo.com